They should start giving Peter Jackson enough money to make a movie out of this.

[Ndy]

Would be awesome indeed! One can always hope

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

That isn't how it would work. I can guarantee you that if getting a paper cut was lethal, it would be just as terrifying as getting blown to pieces. On the other hand, if getting blown up was as trivial as getting a papercut, it wouldn't be terrifying at all.

If I were to make a wild assumption, I would say that the people involved would start warming up to the other sides, treating it like a game with rivals that they enjoy seeing on the field.

IMO it wouldn't quite happen that way, because:

1) I'd imagine dying is pretty damn painful.
2) Some deaths are wayyyyy scarier than others like getting shot in the head vs getting thrown into the vaccuum of space or catching a plague.
3) Human instincts. Take "waterplanking" for example, you won't really die from it, nor be permanently damaged by it but people crap their pants because it simulates the act of drowning.

The Battlestar Gallactica reboot addressed respawning pretty well. The cylons started developping a fear of death (as it became more painful to endure) or started going around the bend (Scar was consumed by reckless hate and anger, sixes commiting suicide, threes taking some perverse pleasure from dying as it brings them supposedly closer to god). So there's definately room there to make "smart" sci-fi instead of Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich bullshit.

[snaffe]

This is how the movie would go:

1. Terran MALE soldier finds this really attractive NC hottie on the battlefield. Turns out it's his long lost sister after snogging.
2. Both end up fighting a VS army with mysterious powers and no incest happens! Just almost.

Shoot that's Star Wars innit.

Ooooor NC soldier finds mysterious alien tech that needs to be melted down in a volcano........

[MrKWalmsley]

Originally Posted by roguy

IMO it wouldn't quite happen that way, because:

1) I'd imagine dying is pretty damn painful.
2) Some deaths are wayyyyy scarier than others like getting shot in the head vs getting thrown into the vaccuum of space or catching a plague.
3) Human instincts. Take "waterplanking" for example, you won't really die from it, nor be permanently damaged by it but people crap their pants because it simulates the act of drowning.

The Battlestar Gallactica reboot addressed respawning pretty well. The cylons started developping a fear of death (as it became more painful to endure) or started going around the bend (Scar was consumed by reckless hate and anger, sixes commiting suicide, threes taking some perverse pleasure from dying as it brings them supposedly closer to god). So there's definately room there to make "smart" sci-fi instead of Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich bullshit.

First of all, dying is not always damn painful, in fact in a warzone with pin-point accuracy and serious damage, most of the deaths (at least in this setting) would be very quick, if not instant. And if they are slowly dying painfully, the fact that you can respawn makes suicide a vice. One bullet to the head and the pain is gone, and your back in a new fresh body. If you cannot commit suicide because lets say, your arms have been blown off, usually in that situation you would fall unconscious anyway. I think I would expect my allies to shoot me in the head if I was in that situation and I would extend the favour, it would be the most merciful thing to do for your friend, but on a tactical level it does not slow the fight down or put your fellow soldiers at risk.

Secondly, dying in a vacuum or catching the plague has nothing to do with ground based warfare. Neither does waterboarding, since most of the deaths in this kind of war would be instant. Also, instincts can be played down by knowledge. Are you afraid of the dark? Probably not, or at least not to the degree where it actually effects you in any way or is noticeable, and yet it is instinctual to fear the dark. Fear is an instinct which can easily be overcome, particularly with military training and combat experience. Your only point is how scary these things are to us right now, you don't seem to take into account the main point of this argument: the fact that you are exposed to this over and over again.

And yeah, Battlestar Gallactica did do that, however that was over a large timescale, he is talking about an hour and a half of film. The kind of leap that would require would be similar to the unbelievable leap from Anakin killing Mace Windu (and regretting it straight away) to mass murdering children a couple of minutes without regret.

Sorry if this is too long.

[Shogun]

make 3 movies!

one for each faction. and let them collide so that some situations will occur in each movie seen from the other points of view.

but give it to peter jackson and NOT TO UWE BOLL!

[Canaris]

as a director Peter Jackson has lost all credability since LOTR, it's pure shite. If you want a real director to make a planetside movie, then go straight to the top of the food chain and get Christopher Nolan

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Canaris

as a director Peter Jackson has lost all credability since LOTR, it's pure shite. If you want a real director to make a planetside movie, then go straight to the top of the food chain and get Christopher Nolan

*rough voice* I'm Batman. *decloaks*

[Shogun]

the movie for the vanu side should be made by quentin tarrantino ;-)

[MasterMind]

Instead of a movie, how about a reboot of a show like Red vs Blue?

Oh my, the fun we could have!

[Firearms]

Originally Posted by Shogun

make 3 movies!

one for each faction. and let them collide so that some situations will occur in each movie seen from the other points of view.

but give it to peter jackson and NOT TO UWE BOLL!

Best idea so far.

Nominate:-

NC - Higby himself
TR - Chris Ward
VS - Kimberly Kane

[roguy]

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

First of all, dying is not always damn painful, in fact in a warzone with pin-point accuracy and serious damage, most of the deaths (at least in this setting) would be very quick, if not instant.

Every war ever fought has had more wounded than dead so a don't see how one could assume that in the future it would be any different, especially considering how many weapons developped in the 20th (and today...) that are designed to maim rather than kill in order to demoralize and stress your oponents logistics.

That's not even factoring in "foul play" such as torture, humiliation, executions, attacking civilian objectives etc. Wich would be sure to keep the tensions and hatred going.

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

And if they are slowly dying painfully, the fact that you can respawn makes suicide a vice. One bullet to the head and the pain is gone, and your back in a new fresh body.

That's assuming that respawning is cheap as chips or that your enemy doesn't try to take out your respawning facilites or "respawn juice" (or whatever) factories. Or maybe even political implications like threatening under performing troops to NOT resurrect them if they fail or to set an example (much like machine gunners ordered to take out their own soldiers if they retreated in WW1).

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

Secondly, dying in a vacuum or catching the plague has nothing to do with ground based warfare. Neither does waterboarding, since most of the deaths in this kind of war would be instant.

Ok how about Mustard gas? The whole reason why the use of gas weaponry escalated in WW1 was because both sides were becoming desperate to end and seemingly endless war. For example, I've felt the effects of tear gas once.... I'm 100% sure i wouldn't have died from it but it's damn scary.

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

And yeah, Battlestar Gallactica did do that, however that was over a large timescale, he is talking about an hour and a half of film. The kind of leap that would require would be similar to the unbelievable leap from Anakin killing Mace Windu (and regretting it straight away) to mass murdering children a couple of minutes without regret.

There's plenty of war movies that have done the boy-goes-to-war-and-is-never-the-same in 1 hour 30 minutes. "All quiet on the western front" is a great example.

[Otleaz]

For the few people who saw my rant about the community a couple weeks back followed by a declaration to avoid involving myself in any future discussions, the above post is a shining example of what I was talking about.

[MrKWalmsley]

Originally Posted by roguy

Every war ever fought has had more wounded than dead so a don't see how one could assume that in the future it would be any different, especially considering how many weapons developped in the 20th (and today...) that are designed to maim rather than kill in order to demoralize and stress your oponents logistics.

We can discount the wounded-dead ration of every war up until very recent modern history on the count that weapons were ineffective, and inaccurate, leading to wounds rather than kills. Also, can you name me one weapon which is used regularly today by a first world country, which is soully designed to maim rather than kill?

Originally Posted by roguy

That's not even factoring in "foul play" such as torture, humiliation, executions, attacking civilian objectives etc. Wich would be sure to keep the tensions and hatred going.

Torture is only possible with capture, and capture is mostly made possible by surrender. Surrender requires those surrendering to be fearful for their lives, which means that capture in itself cannot be used to justify fear, as fear itself is necessary to justify capture. Although it is possible to capture someone who hasn't surrendered, it would be VERY rare indeed, and not a constant fear worth mentioning. If I'm defending a hopeless position, and I know I can respawn (or at least I think I do) I'm going to fight to the death, or at the very least shoot myself to avoid capture. And before you say "well what if re-spawning has been disabled?", well in that scenario, it would practically be the end of the war, and so is irrelevant to the day-to-day struggle of a soldeir in PS2.

Originally Posted by roguy

That's assuming that respawning is cheap as chips or that your enemy doesn't try to take out your respawning facilites or "respawn juice" (or whatever) factories. Or maybe even political implications like threatening under performing troops to NOT resurrect them if they fail or to set an example (much like machine gunners ordered to take out their own soldiers if they retreated in WW1).

In the lore of the game, re-spawning is cheap as chips, otherwise they would be far rarer than being placed in practically every single building on Auraxis (including such simple things as towers). Also not many soldiers would be fearing what is not likely (like the spawn chamber being taken out) because it is likely that they would know about it's loss (which would require ALL spawning tubes to be captured) if it happened, so there would be no reason to actively fear it. Just like modern soldiers today don't drive back to base fearing that the base has been taken over and enemies lay in ambush.

Also threatening to effectively kill soldiers is basically a court marshal execution. They have been deemed to be un-ethical now, I don't see why ethics would fall back to the dark ages in the future.

Originally Posted by roguy

Ok how about Mustard gas? The whole reason why the use of gas weaponry escalated in WW1 was because both sides were becoming desperate to end and seemingly endless war. For example, I've felt the effects of tear gas once.... I'm 100% sure i wouldn't have died from it but it's damn scary.

Once again, if it is not lethal, experience can overcome a fear! Simple! As for lethal gases like mustard gas, the majority of characters seem to be using gas masks permanently, so I don't think that is much of a threat to them. If either side was to deploy a weapon to end the war I'm pretty sure it would be a nuclear device, nothing as clumsy and unreliable as mustard gas.

Originally Posted by roguy

There's plenty of war movies that have done the boy-goes-to-war-and-is-never-the-same in 1 hour 30 minutes. "All quiet on the western front" is a great example.

Yes that's true, but when the horror itself is based around how many times you spawn (which was clearly what I was referring to in this comment) it requires a large amount of deaths by the main character to see a visible change. War itself can change someone because it can be experienced constantly, wereas re-spawning is a singular event which needs to be repeated in order to work as a transformation. I'd say the main character would have to die at least 20 times in the film for such a transformation to be believable. Once again that comment was only responding to the horror coming from repeated resurrection within such a short time-frame, not war itself.

[DSxGIIR]

The guy that directed Avatar would be awesome, not the lame cartoon movie...

[roguy]

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

We can discount the wounded-dead ration of every war up until very recent modern history on the count that weapons were ineffective, and inaccurate, leading to wounds rather than kills.

Ok so what do you consider ineffective and innaccurate? Because that fact hasn't changed in either Irak, Afghanistan or Syria so the point still stands. Another fact is that the more "effective" a weapon becomes the more "effective" it's counter becomes so it stays pretty much the same in the larger picture. Bullets lead to making kevlar vests, machine guns lead to tanks etc.

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

Also, can you name me one weapon which is used regularly today by a first world country, which is soully designed to maim rather than kill?

Sure : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

Torture is only possible with capture, and capture is mostly made possible by surrender. Surrender requires those surrendering to be fearful for their lives, which means that capture in itself cannot be used to justify fear, as fear itself is necessary to justify capture. Although it is possible to capture someone who hasn't surrendered, it would be VERY rare indeed, and not a constant fear worth mentioning.

So you don't think that with capturing being the only way to properly "take out" a soldier from the war, you wouldn't assume that the factions wouldn't develop a means to make it easier? Or wouldn't adapt to the fact that any soldier they try to gather intel from will immediately attempt to off himself?

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

Also threatening to effectively kill soldiers is basically a court marshal execution. They have been deemed to be un-ethical now, I don't see why ethics would fall back to the dark ages in the future.

You mean unethical stuff like dictatorships (TR), terrorism (NC) or eugenics (VS)?? Hell, cloning is banned in all 4 corners of the world and that's not even close to rebirthing.

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

Once again, if it is not lethal, experience can overcome a fear! Simple! As for lethal gases like mustard gas, the majority of characters seem to be using gas masks permanently, so I don't think that is much of a threat to them. If either side was to deploy a weapon to end the war I'm pretty sure it would be a nuclear device, nothing as clumsy and unreliable as mustard gas.

Fine then. Take radioactive poisoning, biological weapons and nerve gas. I'm just pointing out that in EVERY war things start out pretty tame and honorable in comparison to what happens towards the later stages. Be it WW1 , WW2, Vietnam etc.

Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley

Yes that's true, but when the horror itself is based around how many times you spawn (which was clearly what I was referring to in this comment) it requires a large amount of deaths by the main character to see a visible change. War itself can change someone because it can be experienced constantly, wereas re-spawning is a singular event which needs to be repeated in order to work as a transformation. I'd say the main character would have to die at least 20 times in the film for such a transformation to be believable. Once again that comment was only responding to the horror coming from repeated resurrection within such a short time-frame, not war itself.

I respect your opinion but I'll disagree on the basis that not all traumatic experiences are related to death, then there are preconceptions, instincts... Even the best spec ops soldiers can have some severe mental scarring after a few months of active duty.